Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 8:08:39 to 8:14:25
Officials discuss the timeline for engaging with the Department of Finance and explain a reduction in total program funding from $568.2 million to $560.9 million due to projects moving to other programs.
Topics: Infrastructure, Government spending
Speakers: Senator Glenn Sterle, Senator Paul Scarr, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Mr. Jim Betts, Lisa Rauter, Jacinta McDonald, Jessica Hall
>> SC.
So, on what date did the department first engage with the department of finance in relation to guidelines? When did you first start the process of engaging with the department? >> August. Okay. Can you be more particular? It must have been you released the guidelines in one September. So presumably it wasn't 31
>> From memory it was the 5th of August. Um but I can just check if you'd like to keep going and I can just confirm for you when I found the information.
>> Okay. Um the guidelines that are currently available on the infrastructure website state on page five. The Australian government has committed up to $560.9 million for projects under the program. Undertaking internet archive search to check for versions of the guidelines. We found a version indicating on the same page an amount of 568.2 million. >> So there was this difference between the 560.9 and the 568.2. Are you aware of that difference and how that how the how and why the document
was updated? Yes, Senator. The $568 million figure was the original value of the program. Two projects were then taken out of the program which dropped it back to the 560.
>> Was that because of the doubling up
>> And it was because two projects were um
>> Oh, they moved off to other programs.
>> Yes. Yep.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Thank you, Chief.
>> just backing up Senator Scarr here. Which department official chose to send the brief up to the minister's office without the department of finances advice?
>> So that's one that we will come back to you on senator because neither miss router or myself were >> there at the time and it could be a number of people who put that brief up. So we just don't know. We don't have the brief in front of us. We will find out.
We will come back. Is it standard practice in the department to send up guidelines for signature without department of finance?
>> The opposition is not that it was without their advice. It's that they made a series of comments, not all of which we took on board because some of the issues that they were raising had not been resolved at that stage, which is why we went with the two-stage process with an addendum.
>> Was there pressure from the minister's office to get the guidelines out? Is that why you rushed the process?
Not that I'm aware of, but again, you
weren't at the time. >> Mr. Betts, >> was the minister suggest keen to get the guidelines up and the program rolled out?
>> I imagine ministers generally are keen to get cracking on things like grants programs. Um but uh it's perfectly standard practice to put out guidelines to give early notice to potential applicants because this could be quite timeconuming and expensive processes for those applicants and then as more information comes to light um to make adjustments to those guidelines. Well,
that is usual practice because usually the applicants don't know who they are yet. >> But in this case, every single applicant >> That's not We're not asking questions about CDG. CDG stayed open.
>> Um, closed non-competitive programs.
>> No, [clears throat] invite only. Very different from closed non-competitive. Anyway, we can debate semantics.
>> All right. just want to clear off on this. You finished on this topic >> You've still got more questions, >> but I had said earlier on I want to have a go before it's finished because I'm after 21 years I haven't had to go back and correct the record. So, I just wanted to check because when I first started here, I said to you, Miss McDonald, Miss Rauter, when we sat through the inquiry the other day, I clearly heard that and I think it was evidence, not I don't think it was evidence from the mayor whose name escapes me. I'm sorry, >> that the original Mr. burn. Sorry. The original application for the golf club upgrade had sewage in it. And when I said that and then and then I said, but the New South Wales government came in after and they did it. Then I heard I think I heard Senator McDonald say, "No, I got that wrong." And there was some hands and you guys didn't say I got it right. I think you said I got it wrong because if I've misled the Senate, I want to correct it. I'm not going down the path of what the prime minister said. I mean, he's the prime minister. He's trying to run the show for everything going on from wars and all sorts of stuff. And he and I'm just asking was that in the original quote? >> I don't need a full explanation.
The original announcement mentioned um sustainability will also be a focus with storm water to be harvested irrigating the golf course and the local sporting fields like Mahani Reserve Beaman Park while boosting the health of the nearby Cooks River which is the linkage to Suridge >> but that was then funded by the
Rder, because I started doubting myself and I know I wasn't actively engaged for the whole nine hours in that committee the other day, but I did hear that. So, I don't have to correct the record.
>> The point is that that decision was made
ago before you had question, Senator Donald, I've just wanted to clear the record. I have been vindicated. I didn't get it wrong. So, I'm very happy that after 21 years and a couple of days, I don't have to go in and correct the record again. Thank you. Now, are there further questions? I'm sure there is. I'm sure there's going to be some.